MHA Management Committee Minutes 7-25-05

Management Committee Meeting, August 22, 2005.

Agenda items for group management meeting 8/22/05
back to top
Approval of minutes from 7/25

7. Schedule of summer quarterly meeting? Coordinate with updates on infrastructure? See site committee report.

Management committee Report - lawyer’s council for development agreement on lot 81 – need to clarify insurance question – Bill W. input? See below

Site/infrastructure committee report – Bill Windsor or Mark Reeder/ (Bill not present)

Insurance/volunteer issue: Waiver only needed? For the project on lot 81, the CU kids are signing a volunteer waiver: (From the lead on the CU project, Michael Hughes: In my discussions with the Risk Management Dept at theUniv. they tell us that the students will have to sign a liability waiver releasing both you and the Univ.from responsibility for their insurance and stating that they do have health coverage in case of anaccident. I'm sure this is something we can clarify in the language of the agreement.

In our case, MHA has no specific workers' comp policy, but Hast and Company has discussed getting a case-by-case workers' comp policy to cover uninsured workers. I know that MHA has an insurance policy but I'm not sure just exactly what it is -

1. Correction – both Thistle and Hast & Company said that this could not be done because it was in violation of the Fair Housing Act. (A notice was going to be put in the Newsletter that any one who was disabled should request to be on a list of people who needed transportation) (Loretta Milcarek)

2. Correction - The group agreed that although Jonathan wouldn't be at the management committee meeting on the 8th, it would still be sufficient to have a hearing with a resident and her attorney at Thistle at 5:00 on the 8th with any management committee members present. Kabir had mentioned he would be out of town for the 8th as well. After some discussion, we decided - clearly - that Loretta, Julie and Enzo were not expected to be there. It was also stated that the management committee should be the first to hear this resident's issues. This is a meeting in which we are just hearing the issues, gathering information. We would verify with witnesses, later, the truth of what this resiednt holds true, and decide what we want to do, based on all the facts. Paul pointed out that the grievance procedure really takes place after the resident has aired their concerns with the management committee - after all, this resident has only been given a warning, at this point. (Jonathan Machen)

Blacktop areas are breaking down, some need to be repaired now, and some can be patched with sealer.

Roger made the comment about how the city trucks and work by ACC would destroy the roads. City refused to accept that the work would destroy the roads. The roads would be picked up during infrastructure. Roger then asked if can we put in reinforced concrete for trash pick up.

Mark will ask Bill, though it is unlikely since we are trying to save very penny we can on this budget. Jonathan - what can we spend for asphalt patching? Loretta – Current budget is about $2000. Mark recommended throwing any money from patching roads into infrastructure. Gene suggested that we use rocks. Julie suggested gravel, Loretta suggested road base. Talk to Roger Lester about what is the cheapest way to fix the roads.

Jonathan made the motion to ask Loretta to investigate cost effective solutions. Kabir seconded

Three refrigerators have been found outside homes. Some are leaking fluids. Loretta suggested we call the police and code enforcement. Call Roger Lester to haul away.

Loretta - Two notices to owner. Do we continue sending notices and issuing fines? Jonathan - At what point do notices turn into fines?

Loretta - The next step is to give fines. Continue these until the fines reach a certain level $300 and we could evict for ignoring notices and refusing to pay the fines.

Loretta - no. She explained that Gene called animal control; the officer cited the dog for not being a legal dog. If they are called out again, then a different procedure.

It was discussed that the MHA should communicate through the newsletter to keep the park up. Jonathan- we are not Boulder Meadows with its draconian enforcement. We need to strike a balance between keeping yards neat and not being too harsh. May have to accept some messiness.

Infrastructure will be phased in road by road. This is because the money available for infrastructure does not allows us to do the entire park at once. We will begin on the south side and work our way north. As money become available, more of the Park will be upgraded. The biggest issues facing TCH and MHA right now are approval of variance requests and approval of tech docs. At present the city is not approving variance requests and will not give the reasons why. What this means is that the start on construction could be put off or so long that it would not be feasible to do it until next year. If we start too late in the current year, it means doing construction through the winter - a hardship on the residents and the construction crews. If the city is too tardy in its approval of documents, most likely construction will not begin until spring of 2006.

Loretta discussed a letter from a resident explaining why she has not cleaned up her yard. The building permit has expired, and a half-finished structure is languishing. We have talked about a volunteer group to take away the lumber. We can probably get a court order to have the remaining structure removed. We have tried the other options of kindness and persuasion. Nothing has worked. If the resident won’t comply the only other way is to get a court order. We have been dealing with it for three years.

Kabir Send a letter that we will have it removed with a court order and follow it up.

Jonathan - They won’t dismantle the structure, but if it is on the street they will come for it. Kabir’s offer is good.

Kabir - A combination of the court order with people willing to help her might work.

Loretta - letter will say that the resident has two choices: The resident will accept volunteer help that Mapleton residents will arrange to help her to get rid of the building materials, at no cost. If the resident chooses not to voluntarily remove the items then there will be a court order to remove the materials at the resident's cost.

Operating expenses are $14,000 less than budgeted, income is up and out net income is $25,000 to the plus. Collection loss is bad, but income for assessments is up because of net prepays - some pay several months in advance; some one month in advance. We are doing well even with the collection loss. For the first 7 moths of this year we haven’t collected $12,000. Positive points on collections:

At the end of July there were 34 residents with past due amounts. We sent out letters to everyone. We actually in August have made some collections. One person has made her commitment. One person has made it to social security. Starting in September, the rent will come out of the social security account. When this person gets a job he will pay off the back debt. Anothe resident in arrears has paid off her debt. Loretta will call her and find out what is going on with her. Two other people have made no effort to contact Hast. One resident has made no payments since May. Public Service is turned off on that resident's home.

Loreta suggested that we need to do code enforcement and ask police to find out what is going on with a unit that has suspicious odors emanating from it, and then see if the resident needs any other help.

Roger asked about accounts receivable not being on the budget. Loretta asked whether we want to give all the information since she hasn’t done it in the past. Based on the previous for privacy reasons - budget summary and comparison.

Paul wanted to see the entire budget so that he can review it and see if anything else needs to be added to the summary.

The Thistle Finance Committee will review budgets a week from today. MHA needs to go through the budget and see what we like and don’t like. 05/06 budget a draft of recommendations.

Paul - Some miscommunication - not trying to contest what was being paid out, only trying to assert that these were MHA funds being dispersed to TCH and want to formalize how that is being done.

Once the budget is approved then Hast & Co. makes the disbursements. Paul is opposed to any automatic payments. How it will be paid is up to the MHA board and committee? There is a need to check in with the MHA board. Paul wants to have MHA review and Roger says that it possible.

Barbara will send to Loretta a copy of the Management Plan so that the resident, who has been given warnings about two issuues, has a copy of the Grievance Procedure. Loretta then explained to the committee that she received a letter from a resident's attorney asking for money to pay the attorney’s fees for the time they spent at the last meeting, when nothing was accomplished. Although there was a snafu with the last meeting, the required MHA representatives were there; they just didn't remember that they were merely to listen to the resident who had received the warning notice. (Jonathan - Alex and Gene were here for the meeting. The resident and the resident's lawyer were here. And they sat here for 15 minutes and then the resident and her attorney left).

Loretta answered, in summarizing the MHA’s position - The resident was given a warning; and it was the resident's choice to hire an attorney.

2. The decision was made that since the resident brought her attorney to the meeting of the resident's own accord that MHA is not responsible for paying the attorney.

Jonathan - It is up to the resident if she wants to bring the attorney again. We are not responsible for any lawyer's fees.

Paul - The meeting is a hearing where the resident airs their grievance and then the issue will be brought back to the larger group.

Barbara brought up the issue concerning letter to a resident - this resident's attorney wrote a letter about the resident's participation in the rent tier and that resident's purchase of a second home.

Who owns the home? The previous owner gave Loretta a copy of the bill. The home was sold to the particular resident. The resident was paying the rent, but has stopped paying the Market Rate rent since the rent went to the highest rent tier. The resident is paying the lowest rent tier rate.

Barbara - The documentation will fill in the gaps in the resident's lawyer’s knowledge - rules and regs, meetings the resident attended about rent tier.

What is the resident's position? Barbara has the documentation on what the resident has agreed to.

The resident circled an agreement to lowest rent tier in one of the many letters sent to residents, but did not provide information asked for at that time.

Loretta - One could make the case that the resident's attorney could slice through TCH arguments. The question is, are we willing to go to court on it?

Barbara - The question is what trailer does the resident own. The home the resident is living in is in the name of someone else.

A letter written to another resident was discussed. Originally the letter was to be signed by both MHA and TCH. Barbara had the letter ready for Paul to sign. Paul made the argument that TCH is the sole administrator of the rental tier structure. As a result, MHA should not be on the letter - it puts the MHA up front instead of TCH. Barbara rewrote the letter removing MHA from any decision making process. The new letter was approved.

Letter from an outside person interested in being in the park - this resident sent a letter to bring her mobile home, now at Boulder Meadows, into the Park. This request will be handled by Loretta.

At 8:45, Mark had to leave the meeting. The remainder of the notes were taken by Jonathan Machen.

Jonathan brings up another improvement request form - a resident family wants a bedroom in a shed. Julie will talk to them and tell them that they can't have a bedroom in a new shed - a shed's ok.

The issue of empty lots that was brought up with discussion about the outside resident's request to live here. It was agreed that we need to formulate a coherent strategy about how to deal with those lots - and what rent level would they be at.

It should be noted that other residents have proposed a plan in this regard. Those notes are archived, and will be consulted.

Paul's thought is to place homes on the lots and sell them at a premium - getting market rate rent on line. Paul favors market rate option. We have a need for more market rents. We have an opportunity to make money to buy homes, place them on lots, on and sell units at a premium - more cash flow is good - could help keep the park affordable in the long run, or contribute towards infrastructure. He envisions a starting bid at $10,000 to have privilege of being here- and see how far they bid up, perhaps.

Barbara didn't think the bid for the privilege idea would be right - could it become a front-page issue? Would reporters complain? Paul says, no problem, we're raising money to help the affordable units. Loretta is concerned we might go to that expense, and have no buyers. Cites 35B as an example; she had all mobile home groups in town looking for someone to move in there - every time they got to the market rent issue, that's where the deal died. The city was willing to help meet the costs of 35B to upgrade the electricity before thistle bought the land. The market rent was 460 at that time. Market rate currently is $480. (Orchard grove is currently $325) Loretta also mentions it would not be fair to rent lot 24 someone merely on the waiting list, or anybody else, without giving any homeowner also the chance. Paul feels that the free market does best at allocating resources correctly, so sort of auction might be appropriate. Ebay, Possibly?

Who will get the revenue of a home moved onto one of those empty lots? Will MHA try to capture the revenue, or say the lot is open to anyone willing to invest the money to put a home down here? - Once done, they can cash it out for whatever it's worth. Paul notes that some homes, while fetching twenty thousand, are actually worth only two thousand. Loretta still tells folks (if they want to move in) to send a letter requesting an intent, that has been her style - Paul points out that this could be a mess owing to confusion over who has received those letters, so again it's best to find a different mechanism to decide who gets the lots.

Item: Update on development agreement on lot 81 - Jonathan did a review of the document with MHA's lawyer, Susan Perkins on 8/22 (right before the meeting). Questions raised: concerns about CU's disclaimer of warranty, concerns about our one vote in three on the project management committee for issues like setting the price of the home arbitrarily, concerns about warranty coverage for the home, as well, since MHA now owns it. MHA may be able to get riders on existing policies either they or thistle have - The warranty issues are something we start thinking about now, the other issues (BELOW) have to be clarified in the lease.

One issue MHA needs to look at is getting the home covered on the insurance policy that also covers the washhouse.

Item: Thistle is hosting a CLT conference next August - National CLT network to organize this - A bus tour will go to several of Thistle's interests - people will be interested in Mapleton - People from Mapleton might want to attend, teach perhaps???? Perhaps we want a campaign to clean up yards then...???Loretta suggests pink flamingoes - Paul wonders, will eminent domain controversy be included in this discussion? That threatens MHA's and Thistle's position, that there is no permanence to a CLT if eminent domain is exercised! In our case, with the City's investment, this council would never do it - but 25 years from now?

••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••